My True Feelings.....by Rude

[Toad]

“I only regret,” he said, “that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

Nathan Hale.

[Naso]

Originally posted by Rude
He was an American Revolutionary Patriot.

Thank you, Rude.

And Toad (just saw your post, checking now the link)

[Rude]

Originally posted by straffo
Rude do you think it's more or less arrogant than AKIron post ?

If it's less arrogant what about explaining me HOW AKIron's post is less arrogant ?

Is it arrogant to state a fact?

Private dollars from US citizens flowing to countries outside of  our borders are helpful....pull that wealth back within our borders and it would have an effect. Take a look....

Among international donors, the United States gives the largest amount of official aid to developing countries, contributing more than 20 percent of total DAC assistance. As a percentage of gross national income, however, this aid is the smallest among government foreign assistance programs. But as this chapter has made clear, the true measure of U.S. generosity and sustainable development is not just government aid-it is total U.S. international resource flows, including private capital and philanthropy.

When all these private flows are added to official development assistance, the United States moves into first place for total resource flows. Table 6.4 summarizes and compares U.S. government and private international assistance for 2000, 2005, and 2010. The table also includes estimates for the Millennium Challenge Account, projected to increase U.S. government aid by $5 billion a year in 2006. For private international giving, poorly documented and therefore underestimated in all categories, the table provides a range from the lowest estimates supported by research to reasonable higher estimates suggested by known gaps in research. This range of numbers provides a much-needed starting point for estimating private international giving.

The table provides a different perspective on the common criticism that the United States is not generous in its overseas contributions. Although official development assistance is a smaller percentage of gross national income in the United States than in other countries, it is also a smaller percentage of total giving. According to the DAC standard of 0.7 percent of gross national income, total U.S. international giving in 2000 should have been $69.5 billion. The actual total of official development assistance and private giving was $44.5 billion, or 0.45 percent of U.S. gross national income-well within the average range for DAC donors.

When other official government and private assistance are added to this $44.5 billion, the United States moves far ahead in the total amount of resources provided to developing countries. So Americans have not given up on foreign aid. They have simply found new channels through which they can express their compassion for less fortunate people abroad. Official government aid has been displaced by a rising tide of private giving with significantly lower transaction costs, more client-directed services, and more willingness to cede ownership to recipients.

The recognition by the U.S. government of nonofficial development assistance and its importance to economic and political development has an enabling quality for global development assistance. It could encourage other donors to improve their national climate for private giving, such as through laws allowing tax-deductible contributions. Governments could work to ease the flow of immigrants’ remittances to their hometowns abroad and could study new ways of working at the grassroots level with workers in these towns, supported by immigrants. Citizens of industrial countries everywhere no longer expect their governments to do it all. They want to participate in giving as volunteers-and in ways that ensure accountability and transparency in their giving.

From America’s earliest assistance to international refugees in Santo Domingo (in today’s Dominican Republic) and food shipments for famine-struck Ireland, to the work of the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, to today’s "mega donors"-Ted Turner and Bill and Melinda Gates-Americans have consistently given time, money, and in-kind contributions to international causes, preferring to channel these donations through private organizations. This vast assistance should be better documented. As the United States defines its assistance role in the 21st century, it must understand and work more closely with providers of private resources. The future calls for a new approach that recognizes and incorporates private giving, focusing on grassroots support, local ownership, sustainability, accountability, and-notleast-passion and commitment.

[Toad]

Link for that Rude, if you please.

I was looking for something like that not long ago.

[Ping]

You havent seen Canada doing anything diplomatically anywhere in the world for a long time because the Politicians are too busy F*****G its own Taxpayers.
Cant do anything else while there's money to be squandered.

Yes this is Canada Bashing on my part, But as a Canadian I'm allowed

[Rude]

Originally posted by Rude
Is it arrogant to state a fact?

Private dollars from US citizens flowing to countries outside of  our borders are helpful....pull that wealth back within our borders and it would have an effect. Take a look....

Among international donors, the United States gives the largest amount of official aid to developing countries, contributing more than 20 percent of total DAC assistance. As a percentage of gross national income, however, this aid is the smallest among government foreign assistance programs. But as this chapter has made clear, the true measure of U.S. generosity and sustainable development is not just government aid-it is total U.S. international resource flows, including private capital and philanthropy.

When all these private flows are added to official development assistance, the United States moves into first place for total resource flows. Table 6.4 summarizes and compares U.S. government and private international assistance for 2000, 2005, and 2010. The table also includes estimates for the Millennium Challenge Account, projected to increase U.S. government aid by $5 billion a year in 2006. For private international giving, poorly documented and therefore underestimated in all categories, the table provides a range from the lowest estimates supported by research to reasonable higher estimates suggested by known gaps in research. This range of numbers provides a much-needed starting point for estimating private international giving.

The table provides a different perspective on the common criticism that the United States is not generous in its overseas contributions. Although official development assistance is a smaller percentage of gross national income in the United States than in other countries, it is also a smaller percentage of total giving. According to the DAC standard of 0.7 percent of gross national income, total U.S. international giving in 2000 should have been $69.5 billion. The actual total of official development assistance and private giving was $44.5 billion, or 0.45 percent of U.S. gross national income-well within the average range for DAC donors.

When other official government and private assistance are added to this $44.5 billion, the United States moves far ahead in the total amount of resources provided to developing countries. So Americans have not given up on foreign aid. They have simply found new channels through which they can express their compassion for less fortunate people abroad. Official government aid has been displaced by a rising tide of private giving with significantly lower transaction costs, more client-directed services, and more willingness to cede ownership to recipients.

The recognition by the U.S. government of nonofficial development assistance and its importance to economic and political development has an enabling quality for global development assistance. It could encourage other donors to improve their national climate for private giving, such as through laws allowing tax-deductible contributions. Governments could work to ease the flow of immigrants’ remittances to their hometowns abroad and could study new ways of working at the grassroots level with workers in these towns, supported by immigrants. Citizens of industrial countries everywhere no longer expect their governments to do it all. They want to participate in giving as volunteers-and in ways that ensure accountability and transparency in their giving.

From America’s earliest assistance to international refugees in Santo Domingo (in today’s Dominican Republic) and food shipments for famine-struck Ireland, to the work of the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, to today’s "mega donors"-Ted Turner and Bill and Melinda Gates-Americans have consistently given time, money, and in-kind contributions to international causes, preferring to channel these donations through private organizations. This vast assistance should be better documented. As the United States defines its assistance role in the 21st century, it must understand and work more closely with providers of private resources. The future calls for a new approach that recognizes and incorporates private giving, focusing on grassroots support, local ownership, sustainability, accountability, and-notleast-passion and commitment.

Yup...bad ol Americans....justa a bunch of arrogant turds.

[Rude]

Originally posted by Toad
Link for that Rude, if you please.

I was looking for something like that not long ago.

Here ya is....


http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/usassistance.htm

[AKIron]

Originally posted by straffo
Rude do you think it's more or less arrogant than AKIron post ?

If it's less arrogant what about explaining me HOW AKIron's post is less arrogant ?

I was responding to a post by Slo in which he called Americans arrogant, materialistic, and self-centered. Kinda pisses me off when I think of all the help both in money and lives sacrificed to help those around the world less well off than we are.

If ya don't like it, stick it where the sun don't shine. Now, that I admit IS arrogant.

[Rude]

Originally posted by AKIron
I was responding to a post by Slo in which he called Americans arrogant, materialistic, and self-centered. Kinda pisses me off when I think of all the help both in money and lives sacrificed to help those around the world less well off than we are.

If ya don't like it, stick it where the sun don't shine. Now, that I admit IS arrogant.

You're not being arrogant....just honest.

Some here in this thread just hate the fact that we're fat and happy....they want the same for themselves...difference being, they want us to share what we have instead of workin for it themselves...it's called Socialism.

[Modas]

Originally posted by Toad
My .02 here will probably suprise some.

I don't really agree with Rude or Hangtime.

Here you will now see the truly ugly side of Toad.



Good luck to yas.

Thank you Toad for that post.  You saved me the trouble, and probably put it more eloquently than I could.  I agree with you 100%

All you people/countries out there who don't like what we do, pound sand.  Next time you need our help, go somewhere else for assistance.  I for one am sick of bailing everyone else out and then when we ask for assistance, we get the shaft.

to the boys and girls over there that have to do the dirty work for the U.S. and unfortuately, the rest of the world.  U.K. not included in that.  They still like us.

[Puke]

Nah, 60000 young americans dyin in the rice fields of Vietnam for an idiotic and wrong policy was just enough to remind us that the USA which did many great things in it's history can also make very big and bloody mistakes.

Blitz, you are obviously reaching and know nothing about the Vietnam War.  "For an idiotic policy"???  Yes, the war (as wars go) may not have been run correctly, but that was in an effort to spare civilian deaths and why our politicians took so much control.  But the policy was the defense of a country being invaded, I think a noble policy.  

The conflict has origins in WW2 when under German (Vichy French), then Japanese and then back to French occupation (thanks to the British who high-tailed it out of there after disarming the Japanese in the South.)  The French then try and wrangle the country back but after Dien Bien Phu, where the French get a boody nose and basically surrender once again (though, they shouldn't have been there anyway), there is a meeting in Geneva led by the French where the country was split along the 17th parallel.  (The USA didn't sign this agreement, it should be noted.)  And there were to be elections held to unify the country under one rule but the way things got set up, it was basically communist/totalitarian state in the North and democratic in the South.  So now you have the South not wanting to relenquish power and the North who want all the power and basically the motion is set in place and the North begins a long process of infiltration and outright invasion of the South.  

Once again it was America (and Australia and S Korea) trying to defend a country from invasion.  The USA never sent troops into the North, and the war might've been much different if we took McArthur's lead in Korea and made a landing to split the North in two.  That would've wreaked havoc on the infiltration of the South.  But that never happened, all our efforts were in an attempt to stop the North from invading the South and no intention on overthrowing the North.  Anyway, what really breaks Americans' hearts is that we tried to defend a nation from invasion and none of the world cared...at times, it appeared as though not even the South cared.  

So once again, the USA attempts to clean up a mess started by Europe and not with goals of occupation of Indochina as with the French, but really to thwart an overt invasion of the South by the communist North.  But you try to turn this around and use this against us as bad ol' Americans.  You live in Germany?...don't be throwing stones.

[blitz]

Originally posted by Puke
Blitz, you are obviously reaching and know nothing about the Vietnam War.  "For an idiotic policy"???  Yes, the war (as wars go) may not have been run correctly, but that was in an effort to spare civilian deaths and why our politicians took so much control.  But the policy was the defense of a country being invaded, I think a noble policy.  

The conflict has origins in WW2 when under German (Vichy French), then Japanese and then back to French occupation (thanks to the British who high-tailed it out of there after disarming the Japanese in the South.)  The French then try and wrangle the country back but after Dien Bien Phu, where the French get a boody nose and basically surrender once again (though, they shouldn't have been there anyway), there is a meeting in Geneva led by the French where the country was split along the 17th parallel.  (The USA didn't sign this agreement, it should be noted.)  And there were to be elections held to unify the country under one rule but the way things got set up, it was basically communist/totalitarian state in the North and democratic in the South.  So now you have the South not wanting to relenquish power and the North who want all the power and basically the motion is set in place and the North begins a long process of infiltration and outright invasion of the South.  

Once again it was America (and Australia and S Korea) trying to defend a country from invasion.  The USA never sent troops into the North, and the war might've been much different if we took McArthur's lead in Korea and made a landing to split the North in two.  That would've wreaked havoc on the infiltration of the South.  But that never happened, all our efforts were in an attempt to stop the North from invading the South and no intention on overthrowing the North.  Anyway, what really breaks Americans' hearts is that we tried to defend a nation from invasion and none of the world cared...at times, it appeared as though not even the South cared.  

So once again, the USA attempts to clean up a mess started by Europe and not with goals of occupation of Indochina as with the French, but really to thwart an overt invasion of the South by the communist North.  But you try to turn this around and use this against us as bad ol' Americans.  You live in Germany?...don't be throwing stones.

America cared toejam about freedom and democracy in Vietnam.
It was all cold war power interests and not a single american soldier died there for a good reason.

You bombed a little 3rd world country back to stoneage, used chemicals like Agent Orange bigtime without any moral problems and this little tough country still suffers till today from your assault.
And it was NOT the fault of the brave american soldiers who gave their best there in vain, it was the fault of ya politicians.

Good thing about was there explored a big Peace Movement in America to stand up, using their civil rights and bringin that watermelon to an end at last because they couldn't stand that horrible injustice brought there in the name of democrazy and freedom.

To say the least, after 30 years of thinkin it all over and wounds on both sides healed a bit it is about time for an apologize from America, isn't it?

Regards Blitz


Never said i like Vietnam goverment but it's their country not ours.

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by Puke
 And there were to be elections held to unify the country under one rule but the way things got set up, it was basically communist/totalitarian state in the North and democratic in the South.  

South Vietnam was a democracy?  Wrong.

The reason it got 'set up that way' was because Uncle Ho would have won if the South had held free elections in 1956.

[Puke]

It was all cold war power interests and not a single american soldier died there for a good reason.

The war was really about defending one country against the invasion of another.  And the invaders were not a bunch of nice guys...as is always the case.  And it really showed after 1975.

You bombed a little 3rd world country back to stoneage, used chemicals like Agent Orange bigtime without any moral problems and this little tough country still suffers till today from your assault.

Agent Orange was only used in SVN to defoliate areas being used to infiltrate the south.  In fact, if I recall right, it was nothing different than what could be used in your home garden and made by DuPont.  It wasn't used to kill people.  And an interesting statistic is that we dropped more bombs on SVN than NVN, just for the record.  And when we bombed the North, we made every effort to spare civilian lives, to the detriment of sound tactical sense and the lives of American pilots.  But sometimes bombs go errant and that's a shame.  But what is just as true is that sometimes those SA-2s (which are tranported over bumpy dirt roads to different SAM sites and jumble their electronics) go errant and zip around into a little village after launch and then explode.  Urban renewel it's called.  But that was quickly masked and claimed to be Americans killing babies again.  And you get the "Stone Age" quote wrong too, so look into that one.  Many areas of the North were not bombed such as the dykes and dams, harbors and docks and Gia Lam International and much more.  It was not indiscriminent bombing of cities as such was common in WW2, but precision bombing.

Never said i like Vietnam goverment but it's their country not ours.

Whose government?  They never had a government, always under Chinese or French rule (Germany and Japan for a short time too.)  Then France leads a group to split the country in two which ends up being a communist government in the north and a democratic one in the south.  The North wants to "reunite" the country but the South fears communist rule and asks for help against the invasion.  USA helped the South defend itself.  The Soviet Union helped the North invade the South.  But I guess Germany is good at turning a blind eye; afterall, all them ovens in WW2 weren't baking bread and then the populace of your country can only say "but we had no clue."  Again, don't cast stones and basically all your points you've made are incorrect once again.  I will toot my own horn and state the Vietnam War is something I make study of.  I can tell that you only know the typical banter.  Read a book.  

I guess coming to the aid of West Berlin was just a "cold war" interest too.  We shouldn't have been there either.

[batdog]

I wonder how many people see that most of the 3rd world crap we seem to end up getting involved with is a direct result in the colonialism of Euro nations and thier direct failure to do anything about the mess they created way back when?

 The Iraq mess is..a mess. We view them as a threat to the needed stablity of the Middle East. Like it or not... the ME is relevant to the economy of this nation (USA) and that of most of the world. This is ONE reason we are doing as we are.


 The 2nd is that the regime of Saddam is active in its desire to obtain Nukes and other weapons of MD. India w/a Nuke is one thing.... Iraq is another. Yes... he claims to of disarmed but supposdly we have evidence to the contrey. Collin Powell went forth w/this evidence.

 Irag could become another N-Korea. You see NK is a verrrry unstable nation w/a verrrry unstable Leader/government. The ONLY thing that has prevented the N-K's from going south is the presence of 40k troops flying under the US flag and all that implies.

Okay... we could place a hoard of US troops in the ME..right? I mean we could place them there and watch Iraq?  Uhhhh NO... they..the ME people would realllly detest US troops there no doubt.

So..what do we do? The inspections are a farce. You cant monitor the square milage of Iraq, period. He could have items tucked away that we'd never find. We have to act on intelligence recieved, accumlated over time.

Bush feels that Saddam is a dangerous threat right up there w/Bin-Laden. He intends to elimante that threat. I actualy dont think he cares about re-election. That ALONE should say something.


xBAT